Elian! Nature trumps politics

In my last column, I dismissed the aging Ralph Nader as a "flake" whom I could not imagine voting for. Let me retract that, after seeing Nader tell Judy Woodruff on CNN's "Inside Politics" last week, "The two parties are converging, and the permanent corporate government transcends them." Touting his Web site, Nader called "corporate power" the biggest problem facing the world, a position also taken by the ragtag, rain-squelched, son-of-Seattle protesters at the April 15-16 meeting of the International Monetary Fund in Washington, D.C.

The impressively articulate Nader endorsed a "pro-democracy agenda." OK, Mr. Nader, if you can convince me that even as you condemn corporate abuses, you recognize the enormous contributions made by capitalism to modern life, you'll get my vote this fall. Why? Because I cannot stand the slick games and endless lies of the Hollywood-ass-kissing Clinton-Gore administration (which I voted for twice). The Democratic Party needs to recover its Hubert Humphrey-era populism, and perhaps only shock tactics -- like the election of a Republican president -- will work.

Apropos of the latter, many readers are complaining about my repeated references to Gov. George W. Bush's woeful lack of preparation for the presidency. Derek Copold, for example, warns:

I'm telling you not to underestimate Bush. There are political corpses all over Austin of people who thought he was "unprepared." This guy has steel behind his smile.

When he assumed office after defeating Ann Richards, Bush was faced with a full slate of executive offices filled with Democrats, and both chambers of the legislature were filled with Democratic senators and representatives. We Texans thought that the state was headed for yet more legislative gridlock.

The governor before Ann Richards, William Clements, a Republican, was crotchety, egocentric and disconnected. Ann Richards, it was thought, would be able to work with her fellow Democrats, but she adopted a high-handed attitude toward her lessers as she fell in love with the image the media painted of her as the queen of Texas.

Bills stalled, reforms were delayed and the system decayed. Highways were a mess, education a disaster and taxes increased. It was really not all that surprising that Ann Richards was sent packing along with several Democratic legislators in the sweep of '94.

When W. took office, things changed. He met with legislators, justices and executive officers. Ann Richards had never bothered to meet with her own party's representatives. George W. not only met them, he remembered their names and their proposals. Amazingly, work was done. Bills were passed, and reform began, and even the state Capitol was restored after excess delay.

Like an intelligent quarterback, Bush relied on a series of short yardage gains, with an occasional screen, to carry him forward to the goal line. Given the circumstances in Austin, Gov. Bush made a horrible situation far better than he found it, and he laid the groundwork for future improvement. In 1998, W. garnered an unprecedented 69 percent of the popular vote.

I know that he is young, but George W. has clearly demonstrated that he has the most important qualification for the presidency: He knows that he is mortal. He is willing to listen to his advisors, and he will listen and learn from his opponents. He can prioritize his objectives and sacrifice short-term goals for a long-term victory. George W. may not be perfect, but then again what candidate is? He is clearly far more preferable to the disgusting and amoral Al Gore.

Also, considering the battering the office of the presidency has taken under the Clintons, the office needs a man who can restore confidence. What better person than the same man who restored confidence in the Texas government, a government that had before enjoyed an unbroken, century-long reputation as irredeemably corrupt?

Thank you for your remarks, Mr. Copold. They are particularly revelatory about Ann Richards, whom I've always celebrated for her feisty persona. Yes, we must be wary about how image is magnified or distorted by the media. L. Duncan Vinson sends this protest from Providence, R.I.:

Are you fed up with the media's constant harping on George W. Bush's supposed anti-Catholic views, as demonstrated by his willingness to speak at Bob Jones University?

If you want to find anti-Catholic views, go no further than the mainstream media or the liberal universities, where you will find them in abundance. Especially in discussions about abortion and gay rights, American liberal culture has no qualms at all about portraying the Catholic church as a medieval organization for sexually repressed troglodytes.

And in the universities, not only are Catholics a safe target under the p.c. regime, but p.c. actually seems to have encouraged Catholic-bashing.

You're quite right, Mr. Vinson. I have repeatedly denounced the overt anti-Catholicism of the liberal establishment -- of which a good example was the mounting of a dung-and-porn-bedecked painting of the Madonna as the sole religious image in last fall's "Sensation" show at the Brooklyn Museum of Art. Needless to say, a dung-and-porn-bedecked Torah scroll, even if part of a foreign collection, would never have seen the light of day in a major American museum.

Next Page: A close encounter with George W. and Laura Bush

• View blog reactions